E-tolling or E Thief?

[Citizen X]

[Phil Cooper]

QUESTION: Is it a efficient way to collect payments when around 66% is going overseas?

I maintain it could be efficient if 90% went to road maintenance, and 10% to collection costs.

[Citizen X]

I agree Phil!

[Citizen X]

A wise man on TFSA remarked, ‘The more things change, the more they stay the same.’ On a weekly basis I now find merit in his words!
1. Minister Gordhan is essentially now saying that the Judiciary cannot engage in tasks of the Legislator. The Judiciary is tasked with interpreting law and the legislator(those 400 people in Parliament) are tasked with making law eg Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977;
2. “In an affidavit lodged with the application, Mr Gordhan says at the heart of the dispute "lies a fundamental issue regarding the separation of powers and whether or not a court can exercise discretionary judgment over a government policy decision".
3. I beg to differ Minister Gordhan. Notwithstanding my official status as a layman, I find as follows:-
4. That was the type of argument the Apartheid government could have made. Let me elaborate:The model that the Apartheid government was based on was Parliamentary Sovereignty. They had complete legislative authority.The Judiciary was subject to the authority of Parliament. The Judiciary could not declare any Act of Parliament as invalid. The role of the Judiciary was completely curtailed by Parliamentary Sovereignty;
5. One of the main objectives of the Constitution of 1996 was to herald in a new era of democratic government based on Constitutional supremacy. The idea was to remove the restraints place on the Judiciary during the Apartheid regime.
6. Now the argument that Minister Gordhan is essentially making(without putting it in this way) is: Why must a High Court Judge who was not elected to Parliament have power to declare as invalid a law made by Parliament who are in essence the 400 people voting into power? The peoples chosen representatives as it were!
7. In rebuttal, one can safely argue as follows: The Constitution was made by the Constitutional Assembly. In a true democracy debate about any issue or political matter can take place. We as citizens of South Africa can express our views on etolling, we can challenge the manner in which etolling was introduced, the lack of adequate consultation, the price per kilometer and whether etolling it self is the best way forward or is there another way such as fuel levy. Judicial review or a decision to halt etolling by a High Court pending a review actually contributes to citizens rights to express their views. That High Court decision to halt etolling pending a proper review protects citizens political rights. That High Court judgement will promote a free and uninhibited public debate.
8. That High Court judge was not making a new law, he was merely ordering a review of etolling.
9. “In Baloro & Others v University of Bophuthatswana and Others 1995 (8) BCLR 1018 (B) Friedman J acknowledged at 1063G-I that the courts are now cast in the additional role of social engineers and, indeed, social and legal philosophers. This is because the courts are now called upon to promote the values underlying an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality.In Baloro the Court also recognised that the courts will not only beconfined to interpreting existing laws, but will engage in the more creative activity of generating new laws, particularly where the existing law is felt to be ``unjust, ambiguous, inefficient or simply obsolete'' due to changing circumstances.”


“If left unchecked, the e-tolling judgment could set "a precedent for future judicial intervention along similar lines".
Mr Gordhan said it was therefore imperative that the Constitutional Court considered the matter to "determine the limits of this kind of judicial intervention".Judge Bill Prinsloo’s judgment, handed down on April 28, favoured an application brought by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) and interdicted Sanral from commencing tolling on Gauteng’s highways prior to a full judicial review of the project.But Mr Gordhan argued the interdict was a judgment of "long-lasting consequence" because the review would take at least a year as the litigation went through the courts. Meanwhile, the delay would cause irreparable harm to the government and the country.”

[Justloadit]

But I thought Mr Gordhan had allocated R5billion as part payment for the loan, so what has happened to this money?
Was it now taken back?
What makes the government think that the citizens are actually going to use the toll road as much as they are currently using?
So if there is a shortfall in the collection, then what? An increase in the toll, or will the government now tax it citizens even more to reduce the deficit?

There are too many loose strings here.

If the court has to favour the eTolling, what is going to stop the government from creating eTolling on all roads, even in the suburbs?
The citizens then would have no say at all.

[Citizen X]

So if there is a shortfall in the collection, then what? An increase in the toll, or will the government now tax it citizens even more to reduce the deficit?
There are too many loose strings here.
If the court has to favour the eTolling, what is going to stop the government from creating eTolling on all roads, even in the suburbs?
The citizens then would have no say at all.

Good evening Justloadit,
All the concerns that you raise are perfectly valid! The real danger is undermining a decision by a High Court Judge by trying to say that this Judge has now made a law when only Parliament as the legislator is tasked with making laws. This very argument has already failed in the Constitutional Court before, I can’t see how it will succeed now. It’s clear that they don’t want a review of the entire etolling process, how it came about, who was paid what, who are the true financial beneficiaries and what was the actual preconceived plan, was it to test etolling only in Gauteng and then roll it out to other provinces?

[Blurock]

In Russia and China the judiciary answers to parliament. You can judge for yourself whether those are free societies! But that is where the ANC cadres received their training, so why should they think differently?

Also see the articles on this in Time of 7 & 14 May.

[Citizen X]

[Citizen X]

"WE WILL NOT WIN IN THE COURTS WHAT WE HAVE NOT WON IN THE STREETS!"
"Rise up again fallen fighters! Rise up and take your stance again, he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!"
"As a man sow, so shall he reap, AND I know that TALK is CHEAP!"

[Blurock]

To all the cable thieves, metal thieves and scrap metal dealers - you can have a royal time in Gauteng. Please do us all a favour.

[Citizen X]

Unjust law and the Fit and proper test for admission as an attorneyFor any of you about to enter the legal profession, you know doubt aware of the ‘Fit and proper Test,’ you further aware that the Attorney’s Act 53 of 1979(as amended) doesn’t really define it. We look to caselaw for guidance as to its interpretation. At present all legal practitioners in South Africa are obliged to uphold all existing laws of the land. It’s noteworthy that etolling is not as yet existing!

I look to Legal Professional Ethics for guidance. I remind you that you must be able to be a person that is capable of accepting responsibility for his/her actions. I’m a different character all together. I respect the rule of law but unjust law, especially where there are question marks about the true beneficiaries of etolling; The bigger picture of South African politics; how etolling will really marginalise poor people and discriminate against them i.e. oh you not good enough to use that nice road because you can’t afford to pay; then, I’m just throwing this out there for further debate really, protracted academia really!

‘The question also arises on which grounds legal practitioners may decide to practise civil disobedience, or to engage in violent resistance. various answers are possible. It may be argued, for example, that resistance is justified when1. the laws are immoral. It would then be a matter of the individual conscience to decide whether or not to obey them (with no guarantee that this conscience is always correct, or that it does not conflict with somebody else’s conscience)2. it is based on the individual’s religious beliefs. The idea is that one should obey God rather than man (but we know that the Bible, for example, can be [and has been] interpreted in different ways.
There have been attempts to justify race discrimination on the basis of specific interpretations of
the Bible)
3. positive law is unjust, and not worthy of respect. In this regard, appeal is generally made to natural law (as a higher law against which positive law is measured) and man’s reason. Locke’s social-contract theory stems from this idea. According to Locke’s theory, the primary function of government is to protect individual, inalienable rights (eg, the right to life, freedom and property) inequal measure, and to act in the interests of all. The state and its laws need be obeyed only as long as they fulfill this function. Civil disobedience and violent resistance would be justified if the state fails to uphold its side of the bargain. But again there are no explicit criteria to measure the failure.
4. utility so dictates. Disobedience to the laws of the land is regarded as an instrument for bringing
about the greatest good for the greatest number. Conduct A (sabotage) may, according to theutilitarian viewpoint, hold greater benefit for society than conduct B (obedience to the laws), since eventually it will result in a democratic state, even though it may mean that some people will be hurt or will suffer loss in the process. But, consequencialism is not generally accepted. Also there is no guarantee that the promised outcome will materialize, not all may agree that the present situation is not acceptable.’[1]

I will state and confirm this for the record though, all you jurists out there, lend your legal minds to OUTA, research your case law..there are really Constitutional issues involved here. This will really promote the class struggle in SA, now it will be only the rich that can use the best roads, what about the millions of poor South Africans!
@ COSATU, I was impressed at how you managed to get CHINA to turn their ships around, when Mugabe ordered weapons from CHINA to butcher his own people! I was impressed!!! The promise you made was clear and unequivocal: All our affiliates will throw your weapens in the ocean!!! CHINA must have simply thought, we can't let such good weapons go to waste, we'll just sell them to another dicatator who does have money! @COSATU, It remains to be seen as to what you can really accomplish with etolling!

I know that there is a High Court review of etolling looming, but , I just think that we need to think ahead of this! Anticipate what their legal minds are contemplating and outwit them legally!!!

---

[1] Vide. Professional Ethics.UNISA. Mulcklneuk, Pretoria. 2012. Page 25

[Citizen X]

“Don't let them fool ya,
Or even try to school ya! Oh, no!
We've got a mind of our own,
So go to hell if what you're thinking is not right!
Love would never leave us alone,
And in the darkness there must come out to light.

The road of life is rocky and you may stumble too,
So while you point your fingers someone else is judging you..
Don't let them change ya, oh! -
Or even rearrange ya! Oh, no!
We've got a life to live.
They say: only - only -
only the fittest of the fittest shall survive -
We got to stay alive! So get up, get up, get know, we’ve been, we’ve been waiting for far too long, so get up, get up , stand up now!”

[Citizen X]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4159[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]4160[/ATTACH]

The message I get is 'You will pay your etolls or else!' Since etolling is an ANC initiative, the DA was spot on when they used those banners stating " Etolling proudly brought to you by the ANC."
How can you not be proud for a bill you voted in favour of and thereafter signed into law?

[Blurock]

I came across this letter yesterday;

Whose freeway is it anyway?

By Mondli Magwaza
Friday, October 25, 2013
The Propaganda is tricking you into believing that the streets are not yours, that it is by grace that you can enjoy cruising down the N1 (assuming it’s a Sunday night.) That you should be grateful of the little that they have done as it comes from the goodness of their hearts. And I fear that you might be giving in.
No my brothers and sisters, these are our streets, we are the economy of the country, collectively we hold more power than the government.

A bit about me:

I do not own an e-tag, Ok, my name is Mondli Magwaza, a law abiding citizen and a married father of a 4 years old boy. I have a no criminal record and I pay most of my traffic infringements. I have never even been to a court room, I only go to police stations to certify documents. But in the recent issue of e-tolls I feel that I am ready to be executed for what I believe, I’m ready to drive into a road block and declare that I won’t buy an e-tag and get hanged on the spot.

Why I’m not getting tagged?

Simple, because the road belongs to me and you and we have already over paid for it. In the 2013’s budget speech R32.9 billion was allocated to SANRAL for road improvements which came from society taxes collected from me and you. A little more than R2 comes off every litre of petrol when I fill in my car; this produces over R40 billion rand per annum in revenue and is specifically for infrastructure development also known as our roads. I also pay my vehicle licence fees annually from which the Gauteng transport department raises well over R2 billion per annum.

Let’s roll back to a stone left unturned

In 2006 SANRAL undertook the so called Gauteng Freeway Upgrade Project estimated at R6 billion, which 5 years later ended up costing me and you over R 20 billion. This equates to over R1 million per kilometer, which by the way was actually a few centimeters resurfacing of existing roads. Competition Commission’s investigation proved that society was over charged for all the work, but the investigation was called off just as it was close to pointing fingers on the individuals that benefited from these exaggerated costs.

What’s e-Tolling

In 2009 Electronic Tolling Company was awarded R10.1 billion tender to extract money from Gauteng motorists through e-Tolling, ETC by the way is 85% owned by a European company KAPSCH, which publicly announced that they will earn R670 million per annum from the e-toll system. Take a moment to imagine the amount of Schools, Clinics and of course Roads (hello......) that could have been built with all this money, don’t forget to breathe.
The fuel levy mechanism on the other side goes straight to developing our roads, if this was really about the roads, the Treasury would have added a mere 9c to the fuel levy from 2006, by now they would have accumulated more than R17 billion, more than enough to keep our roads in an international standard that we are used to (The freeways are there, let’s give it to them,) while maintaining SANRAL’s credit rating and keeping them focused on building roads and us, the tax payers, on working to build South Africa to what it could become.

This is not some national road in Malawi!

Our head of state with his reasoning poses a question “Why should the whole of South Africa pay for Gauteng roads” well Mr President, excuse me for thinking like an African but Gauteng roads are South African roads, The entire country benefits from us driving around on them every day to work our butts off to be able to contribute 41% i.e. R400 billion of South Africa’s social tax revenue, yet in return Gauteng only receives 10% from the national budget. It only makes sense Mr President that a country benefiting so much from Gauteng’s economic activities contributes in making sure that its citizens have the roads to continue doing their business.

I am an African

I then conclude that this is a harsh and painful “thank you” the ruling party is giving to its voters for affording it the majority that it enjoys in parliament.
I see my beloved South Africa as a golden goose, with a potential of laying unlimited golden eggs for the benefit of us and generations to come, but greedy and impertinent mechanisms are being applied to reach into its guts and pull the egg from it leading it to a slow painful death.
The Propaganda is tricking you into believing that the streets are not yours. I refuse to be naďve.

[Citizen X]

I came across this letter yesterday;

This gentleman has really poured his heart out in this letter in a very coherent and logical manner. It makes perfect sense to me! I can tell that he is loyal to facts, incidentally I too am loyal to facts.